Apr. 25.
"In contrast with the intense activity prevailing inside the palace there was no sign of pub-lie interest outside, the only. people in the courtyard of the palace being groups of photographers and detectives." So telegraphs Reuter, sufficiently revealing the actual amount of public interest taken in the signing of the London Naval Treaty at St. James's Palace on April 22, and perhaps for the first time giving us a real insight into the feelings of the British people towards the conference. There has been plenty of excuse for apathy. For over thirteen weeks the conference has "dragged its slow length along," while the dull unconvincing nature of the daily communiques, continually asserting the hope-_ ful progress of the perpetual exploration of new "avenues," without any corroborative statement of fact, did nothing to stimulate enthusiasm. But it is more than doubtful whether the British people ever regarded the conference with affection. On. such subjects, even, we are sorry to say, what most news-Papers tell us, and of course what any politician says bears no relation to what ordinary men are thinking. Among the latter there is a deep and, from Great Britain's point of view, well founded mistrust of international conferences, and on the subject of the Navy they are part: icularly sensitive. There is not the slightest doubt that the collapse of the Geneva naval conference in 1927 was a cause. of unfeigned satisfaction to the great majority of the nation and we doubt whether they -will ard the new treaty except as something that must be swallowed because there is no help for it. It will be interesting to see whether America ratifies the treaty. Senator Borah seems to think he can get it through the Senate. But three weeks is expected to be the shortest time in which this may be accompid) lished and the "Big Navy" men are evidently girding themselves for a struggle.
The full arrangements of a treaty which runs to 16,000 words can searcely be summariz~ ed in a few words. But the: main provisions seem clear enough. Great Britain, America and Japan are immediately to begin cutting down their battleships to a level of 15: 15: 9, Great Britain scrapping five, America four and Japan one. But whereas three of the United States ships would be obsolete: in 1981, the British battleships would not reach that stage until 1984 or 1935. In respect of cruisers, destroyers. and submarines, it is agreed that until December 31, 1936, Great Brit-shall not exceed a total tonnage of 541,500; America of 526,200; and Japan of 367,050. Within these totals America is to have eighteen 10,000 ton cruisers mounting guns of over six inches, Great Britain fifteen and Japan twelve. Great Britain, however, will have 192,000 tons of light cruisers against America's 143,500. Submarines are to be limited to 2,000 tons displacement and guns of 5.1 inch calibre, but each Power may have three of 2,800 tons. This is a sop to France who has already launched one submarine of this burden. France and Italy are very slightly bound by the Treaty. They accept Part I, but it is not clear from the tele grams what this refers to, un-ess it be battleships, in respect of which both these Powers retain the Tights of replacement secured to them by the Washington Treaty, They accept Part 1V, which attempts to humanize the use of submarines; and Part Y, which foreshadows an-view to discussing further limitations, There is. a saving clause under which any signatory may recover her freedom of action, on giving due notice to her fellows, if she considers herself menaced by the naval programme of another Power.
On one aspect of the treaty it is not necessary to be a naval expert in order to appraise exactly what has and has not been gained. Mr, Ramsay MacDonald says that "we have proved how, when the world likes, the menace of war can be removed by treaties." A moment later he do-clared that "his Government had offered to agree to all-round re-auctions in such a way as would entail no loss of security to any nation." There is an obvious, implicit contradiction in these assertions, It is absurd to talk of reduction of navies promoting peace, while each nation continues strenuously to declare that it must retain enough ships to protect itself, Against what, if war has been eliminated? The simple fact is that if all the navies in the world were scrapped to-morrow, it would not, alone, prevent nations from going to war; and to pretend that it would, is mere self-delusion. The only practical result of the London Naval Treaty is it is reckoned that Great Britain will save between fifty and sixty millions in the next five years; and if that money is devoted to cutting down taxation the country will have cause to be thankful, especially if, by some miracle, the reduction of ships creates fashion of economics elsewhere, notably in respect of our bloated and wasteful bureaucracy. More probably the fifty millions will be squandered, a3 one writer has recently well put it, on doing, things for people which they had much better do for themselves. So that we should, perhaps, be cautious of expecting any particular gain from the Naval Conference, Meanwhile it has left one tangible idea, against which it is necessary to protest with might and main. Somehow, the conception has been given birth that Great Brit ain's Navy is for the provocation of war, Everyone partaking in the late conference would, of course, repudiate the suggestion, especially as regards his own speeches and arguments, but it is none the less implicit in the shole discussion, And we would say boldly without fear of cuntradiction that the British Navy is above all things an instrument of peace, Very few people outside the Service itself, or the naval families in' England who are notified by the Admiralty of deaths in obscure corners of the world, which no one has noticed, in pursuit of duties of which no one ever hears, are aware of the ceaseless police work done by the British Navy, in chasing slave dhows, in rescuing missionaries from the cannibals of Oceania, and on many a poisonous Africa river or sweltering Arabian coast. It is not fashionable just_now to dwell on the: things, not, apparently, quite polite to say too much of the enormous services rendered, not only to its own countrymen, but to all the world, by the British Navy. But we cannot help thinking that it would not have been too much out of place if politicians at the Naval Conference had paid some parting tri bute to the great work done for England by the ships and men they seem so eager to discard.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.